Being aware of an Emotion with out Labelling

Question: How can one be aware of an emotion without naming or labelling it? If I am aware of a feeling, I seem to know what that feeling is almost immediately after it arises. Or do you mean something different when you say, ‘Do not name’?
Jiddu Krishnamurti : Why do we name anything? Why do we give a label to a flower, to a person, to a feeling? Either to communicate one’s feelings, to describe the flower and so on and so on; or to identify oneself with that feeling. Is not that so? I name something, a feeling, to communicate it. ‘I am angry.’ Or I identify myself with that feeling in order to strengthen it or to dissolve it or to do something about it. We give a name to something, to a rose, to communicate it to others or, by giving it a name, we think we have understood it. 

We say, ”That is a rose”, rapidly look at it and go on. By giving it a name, we think we have understood it; we have classified it and think that thereby we have understood the whole content and beauty of that flower. By giving a name to something, we have merely put it into a category and we think we have understood it; we don’t look at it more closely. If we do not give it a name, however, we are forced to look at it. That is we approach the flower or whatever it is with a newness, with a new quality of examination; we look at it as though we had never looked at it before. Naming is a very convenient way of disposing of things and of people - by saying that they are Germans, Japanese, Americans, Hindus, you can give them a label and destroy the label. If you do not give a label to people you are forced to look at them and then it is much more difficult to kill somebody.
You can destroy the label with a bomb and feel righteous, but if you do not give a label and must therefore look at the individual thing - whether it is a man or a flower or an incident or an emotion - then you are forced to consider your relationship with it, and with the action following. So terming or giving a label is a very convenient way of disposing of anything, of denying, condemning or justifying it. That is one side of the question. What is the core from which you name, what is the centre which is always naming, choosing, labelling.

We all feel there is a centre, a core, do we not?, from which we are acting, from which we are judging, from which we are naming. What is that centre, that core? Some would like to think it is a spiritual essence, God, or what you will. So let us find out what is that core, that centre, which is naming, terming, judging. Surely that core is memory, isn’t it? A series of sensations, identified and enclosed - the past, given life through the present. That core, that centre, feeds on the present through naming, labelling, remembering.

We will see presently, as we unfold it, that so long as this centre, this core, exists, there can be no understanding. It is only with the dissipation of this core that there is understanding, because, after all, that core is memory; memory of various experiences which have been given names, labels, identifications. With those named and labelled experiences, from that centre, there is acceptance and rejection, determination to be or not to be, according to the sensations, pleasures and pains of the memory of experience. So that centre is the word. If you do not name that centre, is there a centre? That is if you do not think in terms of words, if you do not use words, can you think?
Thinking comes into being through verbalization; or verbalization begins to respond to thinking. The centre, the core is the memory of innumerable experiences of pleasure and pain, verbalized. Watch it in yourself, please, and you will see that words have become much more important, labels have become much more important, than the substance; and we live on words. For us, words like truth, God, have become very important - or the feeling which those words represent. When we say the word ‘American’, ‘Christian’, ‘Hindu’ or the word ‘anger’ - we are the word representing the feeling.
But we don’t know what that feeling is, because the word has become important. When you call yourself a Buddhist, a Christian, what does the word mean, what is the meaning behind that word, which you have never examined? Our centre, the core is the word, the label. If the label does not matter, if what matters is that which is behind the label, then you are able to inquire but if you are identified with the label and stuck with it, you cannot proceed. And we are identified with the label: the house, the form, the name, the furniture, the bank account, our opinions, our stimulants and so on and so on. We are all those things - those things being represented by a name. The things have become important, the names, the labels; and therefore the centre, the core, is the word.

If there is no word, no label, there is no centre, is there? There is a dissolution, there is an emptiness - not the emptiness of fear, which is quite a different thing. There is a sense of being as nothing; because you have removed all the labels or rather because you have understood why you give labels to feelings and ideas you are completely new, are you not? There is no centre from which you are acting. The centre, which is the word, has been dissolved. The label has been taken away and where are you as the centre? You are there but there has been a transformation. That transformation is a little bit frightening; therefore, you do not proceed with what is still involved in it; you are already beginning to judge it, to decide whether you like it or don’t like it. You don’t proceed with the understanding of what is coming but you are already judging, which means that you have a centre from which you are acting. 

Therefore you stay fixed the moment you judge; the words ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ become important. But what happens when you do not name? You look at an emotion, at a sensation, more directly and therefore have quite a different relationship to it, just as you have to a flower when you do not name it. You are forced to look at it anew. When you do not name a group of people, you are compelled to look at each individual face and not treat them all as the mass. Therefore you are much more alert, much more observing, more understanding; you have a deeper sense of pity, love; but if you treat them all as the mass, it is over.

 If you do not label, you have to regard every feeling as it arises. When you label, is the feeling different from the label? Or does the label awaken the feeling? Please think it over. When we label, most of us intensify the feeling. The feeling and the naming are instantaneous. If there were a gap between naming and feeling, then you could find out if the feeling is different from the naming and then you would be able to deal with the feeling without naming it.

 The problem is this, is it not?, how to be free from a feeling which we name, such as anger? Not how to subjugate it, sublimate it, suppress it, which are all idiotic and immature, but how to be really free from it? To be really free from it, we have to discover whether the word is more important than the feeling. The word ‘anger’ has more significance than the feeling itself. Really to find that out there must be a gap between the feeling and the naming. That is one part.
If I do not name a feeling, that is to say if thought is not functioning merely because of words or if I do not think in terms of words, images or symbols, which most of us do - then what happens? Surely the mind then is not merely the observer. When the mind is not thinking in terms of words, symbols, images, there is no thinker separate from the thought, which is the word. Then the mind is quiet, is it not? - not made quiet, it is quiet. When the mind is really quiet, then the feelings which arise can be dealt with immediately. It is only when we give names to feelings and thereby strengthen them that the feelings have continuity; they are stored up in the centre, from which we give further labels, either to strengthen or to communicate them.

When the mind is no longer the centre, as the thinker made up of words, of past experiences - which are all memories, labels, stored up and put in categories, in pigeonholes - when it is not doing any of those things, then, obviously the mind is quiet. It is no longer bound, it has no longer a centre as the me - my house, my achievement, my work - which are still words, giving impetus to feeling and thereby strengthening memory. When none of these things is happening, the mind is very quiet. That state is not negation. On the contrary, to come to that point, you have to go through all this, which is an enormous undertaking; it is not merely learning a few sets of words and repeating them like a school-boy - ‘not to name’, ‘not to name’.

To follow through all its implications, to experience it, to see how the mind works and thereby come to that point when you are no longer naming, which means that there is no longer a centre apart from thought - surely this whole process is real meditation. When the mind is really tranquil, then it is possible for that which is immeasurable to come into being. Any other process, any other search for reality, is merely self-projected, homemade and therefore unreal. But this process is arduous and it means that the mind has to be constantly aware of everything that is inwardly happening to it. To come to this point, there can be no judgement or justification from the beginning to the end - not that this is an end.

There is no end, because there is something extraordinary still going on. This is no promise. It is for you to experiment, to go into yourself deeper and deeper and deeper, so that all the many layers of the centre are dissolved and you can do it rapidly or lazily. It is extraordinarily interesting to watch the process of the mind, how it depends on words, how the words stimulate memory or resuscitate the dead experience and give life to it. In that process the mind is living either in the future or in the past.
Therefore words have an enormous significance, neurologically as well as psychologically. And please do not learn all this from me or from a book. You cannot learn it from another or find it in a book. What you learn or find in a book will not be the real. But you can experience it, you can watch yourself in action, watch yourself thinking, see how you think, how rapidly you are naming the feeling as it arises - and watching the whole process frees the mind from its centre. Then the mind, being quiet, can receive that which is eternal.
J.Krishnamurthi
 

Qualifications for Brahma-Jnana or Self-Realization as said by siridi sai baba

It is, in short this. For seeing Brahman one has to give five things, i.e. surrender five things viz.
(1) Five Pranas (vital forces),
(2) Five senses (five of action and five of perception),
(3) mind,
(4) intellect and
(5) ego.


This path of Brahma-Jnana of self-realization is 'as hard as to tread on the edge of a razor'.
Sai Baba then gave rather a long discourse on the subject, the purport of which is given below



Qualifications for Brahma-Jnana or Self-Realization

All persons do not see or realize the Brahman in their life-time. Certain qualifications are absolutely necessary.

(1) Mumuksha or intense desire to get free. He, who thinks that he is bound and that he should get free from bondage and works earnestly and resolutely to that end;and who does not care for any other thinks, is qualified for the spiritual life.

(2) Virakti or a feeling of disgust with the things of this world and the next. Unless a man feels disgusted with the things, emoluments and honors, which his action would bring in this world and the next, he has no right to enter into the spiritual realm.

(3) Antarmukhata (introversion). Our senses have been created by God with a tendency to move outward and so, man always looks outside himself and not inside. He who wants self-realization and immortal life, must turn his gaze inwards, and look to his inner Self.

(4) Catharsis from (Purging away of) sins. Unless a man has turned away from wickedness, and stopped from doing wrong, and has entirely composed himself and unless his mind is at rest, he cannot gain self-realization, even by means of knowledge.

(5) Right Conduct. Unless, a man leads a life of truth, penance and insight, a life of celibacy, he cannot get God-realization.

(6) Preferring Shreyas, (the Good) to Preyas (the Pleasant). There are two sorts of things viz., the Good and the Pleasant; the former deals with spiritual affairs, and the latter with mundane matters. Both these approach man for acceptance. He has to think and choose one of them. The wise man prefers the Good to the Pleasant; but the unwise, through greed and attachment, chooses the Pleasant.

(7) Control of the mind and the senses. The body is the chariot and the Self is its master; intellect is the charioteer and the mind is the reins; the senses are the horses and sense-objects their paths. He who has no understanding and whose mind is unrestrained, his senses unmanageable like the vicious horses of a charioteer, does not reach his destination (get realization), but goes through the round of births and deaths; but he who has understanding and whose mind is restrained, his senses being under control, like the good horse of a charioteer, reaches that place, i.e., the state of self-realization, when he is not born again. The man, who has understanding as his charioteer (guide) and is able to rein his mind, reaches the end of the journey, which is the supreme abode of the all-pervading, Vishnu (lord).

(8) Purification of the mind. Unless a man discharges satisfactorily and disinterestedly the duties of his station in life, his mind will not be purified and, unless his mind is purified, he cannot get self-realization. It is only in the purified mind that Viveka (discrimination between the Unreal and the Real), and Vairagya (Non-attachment to the unreal) crop up and lead on the self-realization. Unless egoism is dropped, avarice got rid of, and the mind made desireless (pure), self-realization is not possible. The idea that 'I am the body' is a great delusion, and attachment to this idea is the cause of bondage. Leave off this idea and attachment therefore, if you want to get to the Self-realization.

(9) The necessity of a Guru. The knowledge of the self is so subtle and mystic, that no one could, by his own individual effort ever hope to attain it. So the help of another person-Teacher, who has himself got self-realization is absolutely necessary. What others cannot give with great labour and pains, can be easily gained with the help of such a Teacher; for he has walked on the path himself and can easily take the disciple, step by step on the ladder of spiritual progress.

(10) and lastly the Lord's Grace is the most essential thing. When the Lord is pleased with any body, He gives him Viveka and Vairagya; and takes him safe beyond the ocean of mundane existence, "The Self cannot be gained by the study of Vedas, nor by intellect, nor by much learning. He, whom the Self chooses, by him It is gained. To him the Self reveals Its nature", says the Katha Upanishad.

Why do we believe or disbelieve 'GOD'??

Since my  childhood I observed believing or disbelieving of a supreme being is imposed by the society . No one has ever bothered to know the fact/truth .Since my childhood i have not seen a person neither believe nor disbelieve in god. I have never heard a statement that neither believing nor disbelieving doesn't matters . 

Why is there so fear deep down in our heart regarding to the presence of  GOD?How can we know the actual truth ?Why are we so god feared? Why is always a fear required to do some thing ?i.e if we do or don't do this it is a sin etc.. Why this authority has been preimposed in the society?

Doing the action for its sake not for that something would happen or someone would think of bad about me if not done in the manner they have taught.This has to be the best lesson one can learn from the life and a think a little bit of curiosity takes us to the state of mind .The mind that Rabindranath tagore talked in his geetanjali that goes as below...

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;

Where words come out from the depth of truth;

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert 

sand of dead habit;

Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action–

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

Is the authority important to know what is to be done and what not to be done?

acting without resistance and without will.

What  Does it mean to acting without resistance and without will.

Most of our actions depend on the will and resistance towards some conditions we knowingly or unknowingly. Identified the process but unable to know why we are addicted to act so.

what is the meaning of doing actions with out 'my' will or the resistance in the mind ?

What are such kind of actions we con say that are not done with out will or resistance?

Merely identifying  them may not give a solution of coming out of the situation . why we have developed such kind of situations 

Being & Becoming

Life is only in being but not in becoming. The Understanding should not be  at the intellectual level but at the plane of experiencing life.Understanding the self which is actually you, Not the meaning of self the has been passed down the ages.From the ancestors who passed their experience,Their experience which is knowledge to us may not bring the actual understanding of what the self is.Life is only in being but not in becoming.

Being is what am i actually,MY thoughts,MY accumulated knowledge,MY memory, MY responses, MY reaction on understanding a situation .My relation with the external world which i think other than me, and with me which i think as me.

please you can comment or question or criticize .please feel free on any discussion..... 

qoutes

What does really LOVE Mean?

What is  love Actually?

Selfish motives, even in what people call love, often deceive them and they mistake selfish feelings for love. A person talking of love will say, ‘i love my beloved; i want my beloved to be with me’, and so on. But in all these expressions of love, the ‘i’ and ‘my’ are most predominant. Suppose you find your child running about in tattered clothes and feeling unhappy about it. You will readily feel for it and do all in your power to get good clothes and make the child happy.

On the other hand, if you see a child in the street in similar conditions, in torn and tattered clothes, would you feel the same and act as readily as you did in the case of your own child? If not, it shows how your attitude towards your own child is merely a result of your selfish feeling. Your feelings could be called the outcome of true love if your attitude towards the unknown child of a stranger in the street were the same as towards your own child under the same conditions. Complete absence of selfishness is therefore the true characteristic and real test of pure love.

 How can this pure or divine love be experienced? It is not something that can be forced upon a person or snatched away from another person. It is attained after the aspirant has succeeded in overcoming selfishness and when the ‘i’ for him does not exist. This selfless stage, it might be said is difficult to attain and at the same time it could also be stated that the stage is easy to reach.

Paradoxical as these statements might seem, they are nevertheless true. It is difficult to attain the stage of selflessness so long as the aspirant has not resolved to reach it. In the absence of a firm determination, the external attachments connected with the lower self, prove to be too strong to be overcome, with the result that the aspirant does not find it possible for him to attain to his goal. On the other hand, if the aspirant with a strong will decides once and for all to achieve his aim at any cost, he finds his task easy. Self-renunciation is so necessary for experiencing pure love.

This ‘renunciation’ does not mean that one has to leave all the worldly connections and affairs and go to the jungle. It really means remaining in the world and discharging one’s own duties faithfully, yet keeping aloof from all attachment. The only renunciation is that which abandons even in the midst of worldly duties all selfish thoughts and desires. This is not an unattainable ideal, but a practical goal which can be attained with ease, provided of course the aspirant sincerely and boldly resolves to reach it.

Just as a man, when he is hungry, longs for food, similarly when an aspirant desires to experience pure love he feels the longing for it, and at the proper time he gets the necessary directions and help from a master to attain to the goal of desirelessness and is able to enjoy finally the bliss of divine love. This is a state to be experienced and not to be intellectually described

--Avatar Meherbaba

Source Speaking tree